"Mit csináltál ott?"

Translation:What were you doing there?

October 11, 2016

This discussion is locked.


What brings in the idea of past tense here? Is it the -tál suffix?


Yes, the -t- thing is the marker of the past tense conjugation. It's a bit more complicated all in all, but I can give you the conjugation of csinál in the past tense:

  • indef: csináltam, csináltál, csinált, csináltunk, csináltatok, csináltak, csináltalak
  • def: csináltam, csináltad, csinálta, csináltuk, csináltátok, csinálták


When did we learn this?


This is the "Time" lesson, no? :´)
It's horribly misplaced in my opinion. You will have learnt the past tense further down the tree in the "Past tense" lesson.


Csináltalak means I am yor fater.


The term csinálni can mean both "to do" and "to make". I entered "what did you make there?" which should also be accepted. If my understanding is incorrect, would someone please explain?


I would say "to make" is the secondary meaning. It has to be in context. Without context, this sentence implies the "to do" meaning. But, arguably, the "make" version could also be accepted.


A helpful explanation. Thank you!


My question is about aspect. I have no intention to dwell on the topic, but to make long thing short: are both aspects, Simple and Continuous, included in the past tense forms of a given verb? If so, is it also possible to translate "What DID you do there?"


I'm not sure I understand your question?

My understanding of Hungarian verbs is that the explicitly telic / perfective aspect of a verb is expressed with the preverb meg-.

As an example, számlál means "to count" atelically, without necessary completing that action, while megszámlál means "to count" telically, with the nuance that the counting is (or will be) complete, that the counter has counted (or will have counted) all of the items in question. Perhaps a better English translation for megszámlál might even be "to finish counting", or "to fully count".

I believe the meg- preverb implies more of a sense of completion with respect to the goal of the action, rather than just the cessation of the action. In the context of the sample sentence, I think that adding meg- to csinál would imply that the asker expects the askee to have completed doing something, as opposed to just having been doing something, and then stopped that action, at that time in the past.



Like "robić" vs. "zrobić" or "liczyć" vs. "policzyć" in Polish? I see and get the above point. Thanks for vivid explanation. However, my question was about sth else: does "Mit...?" mean both, "What were you doing? "for some period of time" and/or "What did you do?" once for all. In other words, does the duration of action count in this case?


I know no Polish, unfortunately.


Both "What did you do there?" and "What were you doing there?" are accepted.


That's the reply I was expecting ;-) My poor mind can rest for a while

Learn Hungarian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.